This page contains essays I have authored about education. I have included the original authoring or publication date, as my views will of course change over time as I experiment with these ideas and read further research. Please feel free to cite these essays in your own work.
The Motivation for Creativity in School
Originally published on October 15, 2015
Today I came across an article by Professor Teresa Amabile, of Harvard Business School, entitled, “The Motivation for Creativity in Organisations.”
Why is an article about motivating employees in a business setting important to education? Partly because educators are in the business of readying tomorrow’s entrepreneurs, innovators and (to borrow a term from Zoe Weil, 2011), solutionaries. Ken Robinson (2010) astutely points out that the current structure of schooling was devised at the peak of the industrial revolution, where children needed to be readied for a life on the production line, generating money from raw materials processed in factories. Schooling reflected the structure of business organisations: distinct departments that focused on different skills or qualities, that rarely had much to do with each other; a manufacturing spectrum beginning with the raw material (child), working up the moulds of increasing layers of complexity, finishing with a refined product that looked the same as all the others (standardised) that could be released into the world and more or less be relied upon to do the expected job. Now, industry has moved on significantly from that, but school structures remain the same. Tomorrow’s goods off the production line (hereafter referred to as ‘students’) will not be required to undertake routine tasks for extrinsic motivation.
Entirely routine performance will most likely become increasingly undesirable and increasingly rare in the jobs and the firms of the future. (Amabile, 1996)
The business leaders of tomorrow are being groomed to target the selection of “employees for high levels of intrinsic motivation” (Amabile, 1996) in order to achieve high rates of innovation and creativity within their organisations.
Returning to the question of why this business article is relevant, it is worth noting that many educational researchers and revolutionaries are using economics and business as a source of inspiration for the changing shape of schooling. Tony Wagner (2012) and Ken Robinson (2010) both make strong links at the foundation of their arguments.
So what does motivate creativity in individuals, and in organisations such as schools?
A number of motivators exist, and some key features crop up in multiple studies across a number of business, education and psychology disciplines.
Taken from Hackman and Oldham, 1976.
The connection between skills variance and motivation is already known to educators: tasks should be challenging to all, based on their current ability, without being too difficult to accomplish. However, this is often boiled down to differentiated learning at three or four levels, for a class of twenty or more. The “all, most, some” approach disregards the concept of a competence spectrum, and instead categorises students into very few boxes. Field research will need to be carried out to see how many classrooms teach skills in isolation, to simplify the learning process, at the expense of increasing later the difficulty in understanding synthesis and big-picture processes. I suspect autonomy is a motivator that needs the most scrutiny in a school environment: if students are fed a set course of knowledge and understanding, decided by the teacher or some other authority, there is little room for autonomous decision-making in how or what students learn. One psychology theorist states that,
Extremely high levels of intrinsic motivation are marked by […] such a perfect match of task difficulty with skill level, that people experience a kind of psychological “flow”, a sense of merging with the activity they are doing. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, cited in Amabile 1996)
The presence of autonomy and skills competence (and the subsequent recognition of competence in feedback) also feature in psychologists’ studies of intrinsic motivators.
People are intrinsically motivated when they seek enjoyment, interest, satisfaction of curiosity, self-expression, or personal challenge [and are] extrinsically motivated when they engage in the work in order to obtain some goal that is apart from the work itself. (Amabile, 1996, my emphasis)
In a school environment this translates very closely. The intrinsic motivation is obvious and universal: pursue enjoyment in order to maintain motivation, whether that is in a school, office or startup business. The extrinsic motivation in a school setting is the strive for grades, the GPA or the report card. By applying the level of importance that we currently do to the number at the end of a unit, course or year, we provide an extrinsic motivator that dwarfs any intrinsic motivation that may be generated. However, the acknowledgement of competence, and advice on how to further enhance competence, are acknowledged by Hackman and Oldham as motivators. This feedback, although extrinsic, is intertwined with intrinsic motivation: the desire for personal challenge is the driving force; the feedback is merely a validator of competence, or statement of further challenge.
It was particularly interesting to read some statements, backed up by research, that reinforce the “gut feeling” I have held to date as a teacher. Notably, that,
Expected evaluation can have a detrimental effect on creativity. (Amabile, 1979; Amabile, Goldfarb & Brackfield, 1990; Hennessy, 1989)
Is this not what we do to students all the time? Telling a class there is a test at the end of this topic/next Tuesday is, superficially, a way to drive motivation extrinsically by using the fear of failure, combined with the dangling carrot of a high percentage. In doing so, and especially when repeating this behaviour across seven, eight, or more subjects, students will look for the path of least resistance: the journey on which they reach this goal as easily and as quickly as possible with the minimum energy or effort expended. Such a process inherently shuts off any possibility of creativity.
Being watched while working can lead to lower levels of creativity (Amabile, Goldfarb & Brackfield, 1990)
How do we balance the need for autonomy with a need for order within a school? To answer that question we must ask another – which is more important: creativity or discipline? Surely, both are needed – but too much of one destroys the other. My research this year will need to scrutinise this balance.
Contracted-for reward can have a detrimental effect on creativity [whereas] “Bonus” reward (not contracted-for) can have a positive effect on creativity (Amabile, Hennessey & Grossman, 1986)
In a school setting, this first part of this last statement can be seen in almost every classroom, almost every day: “If you don’t do x you won’t get a good grade;” “You must do y in order to get this grade.”
Bonus reward, on the other hand, is not focused on enough in education – do we need to remove the fixed, intimidating grade that resides on a pedestal, calling children to try and climb up to touch it? Instead, should we be replacing it with passion, self-interest and personal challenge – with the reward of grades (or better still: statements of recognition; badges; certificates; inquiry outcomes) given as a bonus to the contract of learning when earned, rather than a contracted minimum? Thus replacing the notion that the grade is the goal with the notion that your own personal satisfaction is the minimum aim. Schools have long since utilised the bonus reward as an extrinsic motivator: house points; merits; gold stars. These methods should, in theory, work – and often they do work up to a limit. The bonus reward in its current state, however, is overshadowed by the contracted-for reward of the final semester/year/diploma grade. Amabile recognises the negative impact that extrinsic, contracted-for motivational reward can have on creativity (1996), and suggests that performance-related pay is one of the biggest destroyers of creativity. I would argue that the current system of grading students according to their output is akin to performance-related pay. The students who produce the best work get a grade that holds more value than students who produce lesser work – and it is possibly exacerbated by the situation of an external force (teacher; exam board) who decides what counts as better and lesser work, thus further funnelling creativity down into something that can be predicted.
This one article alone has opened dozens of doors into the theories of psychology, learning, artistic expression and business innovation for me. My challenge now is to find complementing and contrasting papers that reinforce or contradict Teresa Amabile’s 1996 paper, and to prepare field research that can answer some of the currently unquantified statements that arise. Notably,
Food for thought…
The Robot That Got Into Tokyo University
Originally published on November 18, 2015
I came across this article this week, entitled “AI has a better shot at Tokyo University than your kid” (Engadget, 2015).
It comes from Engadget, an online technology journal – so the focus is very much skewed towards what amazing potential is bubbling to the surface in new tech, rather than any objective review of educational practice already underway. That said, it reminded me of our current focus in education on standards, testing, and a need for today’s graduates to enter the ‘real world’ armed with skills in innovative thinking that we simply are not providing in many schools at the moment.
The crux of the story is a piece of software, built by The National Institute of Informatics in Tokyo, that scored above average on the entrance exam for University of Tokyo. Notable was the strong performance of the software in the history section of the test, requiring “natural learning processing skills to make inferences.” (ibid.)
This raises the question, what use are these exams and tests if a computer program can pass with a strong mark (511 out of 950, national average is 416)? Are they assessing the wrong skills? Or the wrong knowledge? Or are machines simply on course to overtake humans in skills provision, changing the structure of employment in the future?
Let’s just put our tongues in our cheeks and assume for a moment that the last possibility is the likely one (I don’t doubt that software advancements will change our lives, I’m just not on the technological armageddon bandwagon just yet), are we simply going to sit back and let a minority of programmers make the majority of the human race redundant? In this unlikely scenario, the education system will be responsible for adapting students to flourish in a world where sitting exams will no longer be necessary (because computers can do that anyway); for thinking of innovative ways in which the human race can occupy its new-found time; for thinking of innovative ways in which to improve and progress this new technology.
In short, if the machines are on the rise, education needs to adapt to provide a different skill set, and assess the possession of such in a different way. If, however, we are not yet at the point where the robots take over (OK, I tried to leave my personal opinion out of this, but I just have to be honest now…), that leaves us with option 1 and option 2: we are assessing the wrong knowledge/skills; we are assessing in the wrong way.
Tony Wagner is,
Appalled at the idea, now widely held, that the best measure of teachers’ effectiveness is students’ performance on standardised, multiple-choice tests. (Wagner, 2012)
Ken Robinson sets out his stall in several books, most recently Creative Schools, by unequivocally stating that the standards culture is bad (Robinson, 2015) for learners, teachers, and the education system moving forwards.
So, how to be innovative in an age where computers are passing tests to enter prestigious universities? Innovation is not something that only applies to technology, or science. Nor is it necessarily something that transforms or disrupts. Tony Wagner claims that innovation can fall into two types, across one or more of five strands.
Disruptive Innovation & Incremental Innovation
One is not more valid than the other. Whilst disruptive innovation grabs headlines and public interest – the iPod, iPhone, the railway, television – it is the incremental innovation that quietly mounts up to a critical mass that tips over into disruptive – the MP3 format, the touchscreen, the internal combustion engine, the vacuum tube. Indeed, it can be argued that a disruptive innovation is merely one incremental innovation that connects many other incremental innovations.
The examples I give all come from the realm of technology but,
Innovation occurs in every aspect of human endeavour. (Wagner, 2015)
The strands of human endeavour I identify are:
In education, we are of course interested in educational innovation from a teaching point of view, but we must be conscious of the need to teach, facilitate, and inspire all students to innovate in the other strands also. Such innovation relies on “experimentalism” – a term used by Tim Brown (Brown, 2008, 3) – which is essentially a process of trial and error; a can-do approach to a seemingly unsolvable problem. Indeed, Brown lists five skills required by creative thinkers:
Are these the skills we should be teaching? Are they even teachable? Should we be instead using the five strands as vehicles for nurturing these skills? Where does the traditional curriculum fit in – or more importantly: should it fit in?
Back in a software lab in Tokyo, however, is a computer program that, according to the Wall Street Journal, today holds an 80% chance of being admitted to 474 universities in Japan. Whilst I don’t yet have the answers to the questions above, one thing is clear: we are currently looking for the wrong skills in our students.